Academically, I think Air Force, BYU, and Colorado State are the closest to the PAC profile. BYU will never see membership, AFA won't consider it, and CSU won't get a sniff with UC and UU there now. Of those, I think AFA's the only one the PAC would want.

SDSU, we've discussed before...definitely worthy athletically, but they have a UC-system problem, complete with redundancy alibi.

UNM needs to field consistent football, but I think the 'Zonas would block them.

Hawaii is Hawaii...I think they and AFA would be the best additions outside of the Texahoma raid, but are beleaguered budget-wise. I think the Cal schools and BYU have been raiding their talent for years and don't want to compete directly with them.

USU and UNR have potential...decades away, though. The schools are too small, the programs are too new, and the sustainability issue will always lurk.

I believe that the PAC is stuck until the Big XII GOR is no longer in effect.

When that happens I see Texas going to the SEC because I predict they will lose ground to A&M and will take the SEC advantage away from A&M. I see Oklahoma probably joining Texas but possibly the PAC. If Oklahoma passes on SEC then WVU to SEC. Kansas is a PAC possibility but I'd give the B1G the advantage.

If the PAC expands and some of the above happens, the choices could be down to Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. The only other non-Big XII school I could see the PAC expanding with would be Hawaii.

I do not believe the PAC will expand with any religious affiliated schools, sorry Baylor and BYU.

Boise St. - Not in a million years. Granted, they are good in football right now, but the Academics would instantly put it out of contention. Then there of course is the media market. Boise, ID is about the same size as Eugene, OR. There's a difference. Eugene is the secondary media market for Oregon/Oregon St. Boise would be the primary market for Boise St.

BYU - Religious school. If we wanted them, we wouldn't have taken Utah, but taken them. That and their refusal to play on Sundays because of their religion puts them as a headache for scheduling.

Nevada - Nevada is already somewhat in the PAC-12's footprint. They have the 4 California Schools and the two Arizona Schools bordering that state. They also have gone to make Las Vegas almost a neutral site, and would continue to do so (the redesigned Sam Boyd Stadium would make a good site for a CCG for football, the PAC-12 Basketball tournament is there)

New Mexico - Has the problem of population.

Ultimately, you're going to have a problem with any school not named Texas, and that is ultimately population. The logical division for the PAC-12 is an east-west split. That would put the old PAC-8 together, and keep them happy. However, you'd need some sort of counterbalance to California, or ultimately you'd run into what the Big-12 got by putting their population base in one division: balance.

I believe that the PAC is stuck until the Big XII GOR is no longer in effect.

. . .

That could be another 13 years. So in the meantime, what if the PAC invited Boise State and BYU as football-only affiliates? Although Boise, ID and Provo, UT aren't great media markets, both schools have strong football programs with national reputations. They would help attendance and TV viewership for PAC home games (i.e., PAC network).

Boise State is already a PAC affiliate for wrestling, as are Cal Poly and CSU Bakersfield, so I don't see any real issue there. Affiliate members do not vote, and usually do not get invited to conference meetings, so the snobbish PAC presidents would never have to rub elbows with the BSU and BYU presidents.

Also, affiliate members don't necessarily receive full shares of media revenue; they get what they are able to negotiate. I suspect that a half share each would be far more than either could get under current arrangements, so this could be a really good deal for the PAC.

BYU olympic sports are already in the WCC, so the only real issue would be working out a deal with BYUtv for football games.

Boise State could perhaps put their olympic sports in the Big West or WAC, if they haven't permanently burned those bridges. Actually, I think the WAC would take anyone they can get, and having BSU might also help persuade Idaho to stay.

From the BSU/BYU point of view, this would make far more sense than being in the Big East or the Big 12.

Of the major conferences, and one may correct me if am wrong, it is the B12 and the ACC that have religious-based schools within.

The PAC12, B1G, and the SEC do not have any religious based schools. Some of the private institutions may have religious origins, but they are not theologically directed or affilated.

It would seem that BYU would be a more acceptable fit with the B12. They were once wanted when the B12 was a combined creation. Some of the same issues the PAC have with BYU would also be evident per B12 consideration. However, the B12 may be somewhat more tolerant per BYU's religious identity. But BYU makes certain demands based on their extended doctrine, whereby schools such as Baylor and TCU do not, in carrying such directly into sports specifically. Baylor, though for example, has had prior disputes that got public over academic freedom matters and required curriculum. And of course, it depends on what religion may get questioned and where, which goes to tolerance issues as well, perhaps not in a fair sense for all. BYU has been outwardly engaged, well beyond Utah, in political and social issues that have not set well with progressive and certain research sectors of PAC12-types. On the other hand, BYU does not engulf itself in the gutter of dirty athletic scandals, and is commited to their own moral and ethical codes that extends to their athletes. So, BYU is a complicated entity. They have some commendable features others could aspire to; and other features too rigid for most. On a pure athletic level, why not embrace them? But on a comprehensive level, there's much to overcome, and BYU does not have a reputation for flexibility and readily accepting cooperative change. That's fine and even admired by some obervers in certain regards given that they stick to their beliefs and practicing principles; but it also limits their plausible options for formal associations.

I believe that the PAC is stuck until the Big XII GOR is no longer in effect.

. . .

That could be another 13 years. So in the meantime, what if the PAC invited Boise State and BYU as football-only affiliates? Although Boise, ID and Provo, UT aren't great media markets, both schools have strong football programs with national reputations. They would help attendance and TV viewership for PAC home games (i.e., PAC network).

Boise State is already a PAC affiliate for wrestling, as are Cal Poly and CSU Bakersfield, so I don't see any real issue there. Affiliate members do not vote, and usually do not get invited to conference meetings, so the snobbish PAC presidents would never have to rub elbows with the BSU and BYU presidents.

Also, affiliate members don't necessarily receive full shares of media revenue; they get what they are able to negotiate. I suspect that a half share each would be far more than either could get under current arrangements, so this could be a really good deal for the PAC.

BYU olympic sports are already in the WCC, so the only real issue would be working out a deal with BYUtv for football games.

Boise State could perhaps put their olympic sports in the Big West or WAC, if they haven't permanently burned those bridges. Actually, I think the WAC would take anyone they can get, and having BSU might also help persuade Idaho to stay.

From the BSU/BYU point of view, this would make far more sense than being in the Big East or the Big 12.

I don't see the PAC inviting any religious-based school (other than Notre Dame). It doesn't matter if it's BYU.Boise just isn't well thought of academically.

If the PAC can't wait for the B12's GOR's to expire, the only real option I can see for them are UNLV and Hawaii (Asian Market). Don't see it really happening.

Okay, I have to get in on this. Hawaii will never be acceptable unless it is for football only - to high a travel cost for all sports to make regular trips to Hawaii every year. The best options right now without the Tex-Homa combo is Boise St. (academics, size, and market value go against them), Nevada (considered not quit up to par yet with what the PAC wants), Utah St. (same argument for Nevada, plus Utah may block them, and low media market), and San Diego St. (blocked by other Cal schools). As for the rest of the MWC - U. Nevada L.V. (football sucks), Wyoming (football sucks), New Mexico (football sucks, and the Zonas may block them), San Jose St. and Fresno St. (both get blocked by the other Cal schools, and they are not up to par), Colorado St. (football sucks, and Colorado may block them), and Air Force (decent football, and good draws for fan base, but due to military requirements in height and weight - not competitive enough at the PAC level). Note - these are my opinions and someone else's may differ! When I say 'on par' I mean that they are not considered to be at that conference's athletic equal.With the above stated reasons, I can only see Boise St., Utah St., Nevada, and Hawaii (football only) as future adds without the Tex-Homa 4.

Is there absolutely any authority of the PAC-12 making any kind of move towards 14 or higher? I really don't see any options for them that fit their region, have strong markets, are in new markets, AND fit the academic profile their trying to maintain other than the Texoma-4. Even then, I'm not too sure. I'm assuming, though, that they are waiting for the XII to fall apart, so can sweep in to take the four schools they may want. However, won't the XII need at least 6 schools to leave to waive the exit fee? Would the PAC-12 take 6? If so, I could only see the Kansas schools or Kansas St with Iowa St, as Kansas may end up in the B1G which they would likely prefer. Does anyone have anything?

In an interview, Larry Scott said that at one point, the PAC-12 had brief discussions about adding SDSU and Boise St. for 14. He said that didn't really go beyond the discussion of "if we did want to go to 14, who might we add ?"

Any expansion at this point needs 3/4 approval or 9/12. Apparently there were at least 4 clubs with some mis-givings about adding UT. TT, OU, and OSU, when the PAC-16 was proposed.Speculation was that the other teams that would have been placed in the PAC-16 East (Utah, Colorado, Arizona, ASU) prefer their association with the California schools, and NOT the Texas schools.

Yeah, it will become a thing where it could only be the Texahoma's and Kansas. Anyone aside from those four or five schools will have to have the support of the majority of the conference and, maybe, be fine with being removed from the original PAC-8 bunch. But that's the whole point of the PAC's value...people want to go, play, and be seen in California.

CSU's $250m OCS is something to watch, though. That's HUGE money for a B or C-school.

Colorado State may indeed be one of those 'up and comers'. The PAC has a long tradition of the "pairs", and there are benefits to that, though nowadays, the mindset is focused on new markets.

The PAC12 has mulled over all those western/pacific schools, and view they don't add (or would detract) anything much to the bottom line, and/or have been dismissed for various reasons such as academics, compatibility, travel costs, spectrum of offerings, traditions, etc. The B12 is not expanding right now, in part, because they don't like the current pool of prospects, and could be hoping something breaks elsewhere that gives them better prospects.

The B12 may not want to venture into Colorado given that the flagship school, UC, left for the PAC12; and have the impression the B12 was settling for CSU. And while CSU is not very culturally idenfied with much of the B12 demographics, it would be worth some consideration given the current options if expansion is seen as a must. However, the PAC12 could be the better fit.

Colorado State may indeed be one of those 'up and comers'. The PAC has a long tradition of the "pairs", and there are benefits to that, though nowadays, the mindset is focused on new markets.

The PAC12 has mulled over all those western/pacific schools, and view they don't add (or would detract) anything much to the bottom line, and/or have been dismissed for various reasons such as academics, compatibility, travel costs, spectrum of offerings, traditions, etc. The B12 is not expanding right now, in part, because they don't like the current pool of prospects, and could be hoping something breaks elsewhere that gives them better prospects.

The B12 may not want to venture into Colorado given that the flagship school, UC, left for the PAC12; and have the impression the B12 was settling for CSU. And while CSU is not very culturally idenfied with much of the B12 demographics, it would be worth some consideration given the current options if expansion is seen as a must. However, the PAC12 could be the better fit.

Academically, though, they're basically already a PAC school. They're more selective than some (including Boulder), and sort of an equal to the "States" of the conference (and not far off from UU). They're also big...bigger than Wazzou, both the Oregons...obviously Stanford (although, that's different), but not far behind Boulder and Utah. It's just their endowment that's pitiful.

I just think that if BYU need never apply and AFA won't ever apply, CSU's the next most obvious choice for #13 until the Big XII is cracked open. Who they're paired with is the bigger debate...

After the initial deal involving Texas fell through, wasn't the PAC12 approached again months later by Oklahoma & Oklahoma State, but were turned down? Though from the same state, that's not a bad pair. And OSU has made a lot of strides, both academically and athletically. T. Bonne Pickens has been a major benefactor of the school. They've been doing a lot lately in science, particularly with petro-engineering/related. Their Vet school is respected. OU has over-shaddowed OSU in fb for so long; but even during OU's big glory days, OSU often had a competitive product.

The ACC would not take WVU. B1G rejected Mizzou when Nebraska was added. BC blocked UConn going to the ACC. B12 not pursing a bridge to WVU when they had an opportunity. Some of these conference Presidents, including some Commissioners, really have made some strategic mistakes in their selection processes and considering the long-term future.

Utah and Colorado were not added to compete immediately. So ruling other schools out because they cannot compete right now would also not make much sense to me. (Think Rutgers & Maryland)

I would not rule out New Mexico, Wyoming, Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV or San Diego State. I also would not rule out Boise State. As an alumni of Arizona State, I can say (with clear conscience) that the academic standards to get into ASU are already quite low. ASU is still a great school, but that is because something like 25% of each freshman class either fail out or transfer.

If Arizona and Arizona State did not try to block Utah, they will not try to block New Mexico, the distances are too great, and there is no competition for talent.

I also think if the Pac-10 made an offer to Oklahoma without Texas, that at this point Oklahoma would jump. No one wants to deal with UT anymore, and their Longhorn Network only adds to the problem.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum